Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing
<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Wed, 04 August 2010 14:18 UTC
Return-Path: <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D1C3A67D1 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mN8fwhJGz6-z for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail82.messagelabs.com (mail82.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197F53A6848 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1280931531!25379916!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
Received: (qmail 10408 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2010 14:18:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-6.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Aug 2010 14:18:52 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.14]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:18:51 +0100
From: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: ph@imatix.com, arman@noemax.com
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:18:51 +0100
Thread-Topic: [hybi] Adding multiplexing
Thread-Index: Acsz0CHZBtwCUESLQT6tNUkjymUNNgADuDLs
Message-ID: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A3730C2BF3200F@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <op.vgwojvnd64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local> <4C594A30.3000906@noemax.com>, <AANLkTina8zUbTr7ONw5V_=kA_BRndv9z_fPV_MHtCGUM@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTina8zUbTr7ONw5V_=kA_BRndv9z_fPV_MHtCGUM@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:18:24 -0000
Do firewalls and NATs handle SCTP properly? While it would be nice to see HTTP become a layer in its own right, rather than only tied to TCP: http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn http over SCTP is still pretty much experimental: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp expired draft. and only the Uni of Delaware gang care. L. ________________________________________ From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pieter Hintjens [ph@imatix.com] Sent: 04 August 2010 13:25 To: Arman Djusupov Cc: hybi@ietf.org Subject: Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com> wrote: > Multiplexing requires just a channelID per frame and control frames for flow > control and sub-channel management. It also needs (if you want to specify interoperable multiplexing) rules for clean tear down of channels, handling per-channel errors, handling connection level errors, etc. We did all this in AMQP, and it gets *complex*. If you don't care about interoperability and just want space for experimentation, define a binary frame consisting of length + channel ID, specify that channel IDs are experimental, and that channel ID zero is for control frames. Then define all higher frames types inside that frame. But I'd ask: why are we not looking at SCTP[1] as the underlying protocol rather than TCP? We'd get all this for free and SCTP has other significant advantages too, such as multihoming. SCTP is pretty easy to use, TCP calls map to it. Running HTTP over SCTP would give these advantages to old applications as well. The point: while multiplexing may be beneficial to some scenarios, it is probably flawed to try to use WebSockets to gain this. There are IETF protocols that already do this, they have been around for a long time, they have been proven to work better.[2] -Pieter [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol [2] http://www.cis.udel.edu/~leighton/ _______________________________________________ hybi mailing list hybi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
- [hybi] Adding multiplexing Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Arman Djusupov
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Pieter Hintjens
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing L.Wood
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Arman Djusupov
- Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing Pieter Hintjens